
0 


v/ * * « O .0 * 

- v£> Afr 


<$> * 9 „ O ° <A 


A/ 

SS ^ 

>L ^ » 


* ^ <o 

;. W ;, 

,♦ A’ 'A ».^w‘ / S \ \ _.. 4 

'V ’ ■ ■ ’ a A "A. 'A- ' • • s 4 

°> ,-A ,•'’"' -p A c 

*. "ov 4 .'«§§§?>• a. a 

i r\ • '-“V ^ f 1. k t 


A <V *'■’• A 0 

/ f* * cv *0 % 


o ,o ,>•,•/, A 

° ^ & ♦ 

° '“Or. C- 7 O 






*° ^ - 

,o° V ; -’V 

A- v .*••- 'c\ 

'. *> A .’aVA ^ c . 

* A *• ityj' ♦ a’ 

> 'c** \d *?y.s* a <v 'o 

^ . (A 0 0 " ° * ^O -A ^ * 1 ' ® -9 ^ 

° A *' " 


-/ -y ^ 

<A> . , „ A 

^ *W2?*A '*V u 

-o A a-o^ /. 

.; - 




° 0 -i- *" 1 ■ f V 

' Ac a 0 »'■•', A v 

* ^ ° « Ar* V • 

« A V ^ *°WMW** 

'..S* A <A '- - ''■ 

L V 


o '"'TIT" A < ' 

o N O m 1 f a . 

'. A- > ^ 

". A K . 

\0 "rf* 

o * o 0 ^ 

' <a 4l*> a> v' 







',♦ v A?- 


W » A ^ •» 

a a -#0s y a 

0 o s 4 A <V. 'o.A 

‘ 0*0^ v , B 
• t 'c^Avl <r O j*^ ^ C 

s cSN\ A l\ % ^ * 4 N ♦ Q£n [f/Z?^ T 

,-^fe. iff ^ ul//yC / ^l> ^ ^ 


o V 


\p *7% 

'///m^v - V^ ^ -MR, VX _ 

Vy//<# > r\ * VmAw^ n (v % *' 

s ' 1 * A ° <?A * o «. ® ° . ^ O 

> V* »’♦<>, *^b 

<>>■ <*> ’'a « 1 

V A> aV ♦JUgrA,° 

* a" a • 

V *-T7r«’ A 

* % ,<y «»" “» ; b 

’ A. A 






















A 0 

- ^ r!V /*SUV. * 




^ o 

. v** 

,♦ ^ %. °o 

^ <v -••* 

o -&y . *>' *„ ^ o 

, ^ *_ c° . 

T> *• \ll//y>z> ■» ^ <; v 

» v* o~ ° 



* 



o * 

°<. * • • ^ • *° 
cv .0‘ »*••' 

\ ^ ^ • 

° A^^'C- Wwv'-* « 

»"»- •*•- V .,. <t> 




© N 0 


<f.'’ o * 

,, <% ‘ 

' -. V °* 

^ A*' * jA />1 ° ^ e 

- w : MMM. ° 

; <$ v -. _ s ^ 

• « » « «. v •<*. V '** ° 

V ° • • A° A3 * ' . .T' a. 

^ ,-CT c°”°» "*o .<!> V .>'*, ^ 

' o 0^ * * *» 



* _ ~*P ,0 0 

*7 ^ • c 

* ' < 

■ A o^ 

• <ut o 

*"" s« % ‘ 

■ % *+ ^>Va % ** 

V"V * A\VM/A o 


«* <$ -. 

'•*"»* a°^ ^a 

A ’ o M o A* 

^ r U C ° * o o 

v • ^r^Nv _ <* O .i^> t 




A 

\ \<? : 

i ^..< s ,a < '«'..* ,'y 'o ♦7®7«* a ’ <• ' 0 . , • 

*o *bb ,O ' .« ' •. " l 'o ^ ."’, ■<• " 0 

- - .««!*.* ^ C J ..^ *W^>V ^ t° 







. a5 °x. 

• <L^ O -- 

*••• s v b,. *♦.’• 

“v ,** ,' 

° ^ • 

° ^ v-i v " 

* V - 



; «w 


* J* ^ . ’ 

° ^ A° ^ -v . . s 

,°^ o ° " 0 . ; 0 .' 

0 • O -i^> t 



\p , 

* *U. ", 




























































































































60 th Congress, / 

SENATE. 

j Document 

2d Session. j 


| No. 730. 


CkA/J- 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


Mr. Owkn presented the following 

MEMORIAL OF THE CHOCTAW INDIANS AGAINST REOPENING 
THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW ROLLS. 


February 18, 1909.—Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and ordered to be 

printed. 


A PROTEST OF THE CHOCTAW INDIANS AGAINST REOPENING THE 
CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW ROLLS. 

The President , the Congress of the United States , and the Secretary of 

the Interior: 

The Choctaw Indians, through their general council, in regular ses¬ 
sion assembled, desire to enter their protest against reopening the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw tribal citizenship rolls, and for reasons would 
respectfully state that: 

Experience has proved abundantly that a great mistake was made 
when, by the act of Congress approved June 10,1896, the Government 
of the United States assumed jurisdiction in the Indian citizenship 
matters. Theretofore the settlement of such matters was left largely 
to the tribes, and under the tribal jurisdiction no person was denied or 
refused enrollment who was entitled to the rights of Indian citizenship, 
and very few were enrolled by the tribes who were not entitled to rights 
of citizenship. The correctness of the rolls prepared by the tribes, as 
well as the integrity of the same, is vouched for by Congress itself, 
when by the said act of June 10, 1896, it was provided: 

That the rolls of citizenship of the several tribes as now existing are hereby con¬ 
firmed. 

Had Congress stopped at the confirmation of the tribal rolls as then 
existing, or left the further determination of citizenship matters to 
the tribes themselves, where it properly belonged, the rolls would 
have been made and closed long ago, with no expense to the Govern¬ 
ment and with comparatively little cost to the tribes. Furthermore, 
had the tribes been left to judge of the rights of citizenship of their 
own members, the great horde of fraudulent claimants that besieged 
the courts and the commission would have been unheard of, for they 
and their attorneys would have well known that it was utterly useless 
to try to prove any rights before the tribal authorities with the kind 
and character of evidence that they imposed upon the commission and 










2 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW 


.C«C48 


INDIANS. 






the courts; consequently they never would have tried it. And the 
Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes would not have been forced to the 
necessity of paying out over a million dollars in fees and expenses to 
prevent fraud upon their rolls, nor would the Government of the 
United States have been put to the expense of hundreds of thousands 
of dollars in providing courts and commissions for the trial of case% 
that were absolutely without merit. w 

When by the act of June 10, 1896, the Dawes Commission was au-J 
thorized and directed “to proceed at once to hear and determine the { 
application of all persons who may apply to them for citizenship in r 
any of said nations,” it was as if the flood gates had been lifted. The > 
direction of the commission “to hear and determine the application of 
all persons who may apply” was taken by the numerous applicants to be 
an invitation, it seems, to “all persons” to apply for citizenship in one 
or the other of the nations; at least a great many persons applied to 
the Dawes Commission for citizenship in the tribes who had never 
before claimed or thought they were Indians. Applicants simply saw 
what they' thought to be an opportunity' or chance to get on the tribal 
rolls and get a part of the Indian lands and moneys with very little 
cost or expense to themselves, for there were plenty of attorneys I 
then, as there are now, who were willing to file applications for the 
applicants for a nominal charge, then take the cases for a contingent 
fee of a part of the lands and other property which the applicants 
expected to get if enrolled. 

The laxity of the law in the matter of proof required and permitted 
in citizenship cases was in.a large measure responsible, though unin¬ 
tentional of course, for the loose and disreputable practice that grew 
up under it. The provision of said act of June 10, 1896, that the com¬ 
mission should have power and authority to receive “ affidavits and 
other evidence in any form whatsoever” theretofore taken where the \ 

• witnesses giving said testimony had since died or were then residing 
beyond the limits of said Territory, gave to the applicants and their 
attorneys the opportunity that many of them wanted— an opportunity 
to get a lot of fraudulent testimony before the commission by affidavits. 
The opportunit}' to introduce false and fraudulent testimom^ was not 
neglected by many of the applicants and their attorneys, as is shown 
by the files and records now in the possession of the Commissioner to 
the Five Civilized Tribes, including the records and files of the courts. 

It is a fact which can not, and should not, be concealed or disguised 
that the applicants and their attorneys in Indian citizenship cases prac¬ 
ticed upon both the tribes and the courts the most glaring frauds 
known to the history of legal controversy; this they did in the way of 
bribery, perjury, and subornation of perjury, and in the most instances 
it was done by the active aid and procurement of attorneys who had 
contingent fees in such cases. 

When the tribal rolls were thrown open to the public, so to speak, 
by the said act of June 10, 1896, the commission was almost over¬ 
whelmed with applications for Indian citizenship from almost every¬ 
where; and as the law required that the commission should decide all 
such applications within ninety days after the same were made, it was 
an absolute physical impossibility for the Indian tribes to resist all the 
numerous cases, or any considerable portion of them, in so brief a time. 
The difficulties of the situation for the tribes were increased by the 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


3 


provision already referred to permitting the applicants to submit 
proof by affidavit. There was no way of meeting that kind of proof 
within the limited time allowed for the consideration and trial of each 
case. Therefore the tribes were practically helpless before the tre¬ 
mendous onrush of the thousands of fraudulent applicants who were 
trying to get on the Indian rolls. 

Hut with all their eagerness to get on the rolls and get a part of the 
property of the Indians, then about to be divided, and with all their 
reckless methods and manner of getting up proof, the applicants and 
:heir attorneys failed to convince the commission that the applicants 
vvere Indians and entitled to enrollment, and the result was that most 
Df the applicants were rejected by the Dawes Commission. Rut this 
was not the end. 

Said act of June 10, 1890, provided for an appeal from the decision 
of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes to the United States 
court, and the applicants practically all appealed their - cases to the 
courts sitting in their respective districts. Contrary to the expecta¬ 
tion of the tribes, and contrary to the law as was afterwards judicially 
determined, the cases appealed from the Dawes Commission were tried 
anew in the United States court and the applicants were allowed to 
introduce new evidence in the trial of appeal cases. Having failed 
utterly in their proof before the Dawes Commission, the applicants 
and their attorneys set out to get some other and different proof for 
the trial of their cases in the courts. 

Again the tribes found themselves unprepared and unable to contest 
the thousands of citizenship cases that were pressing for trial in the 
courts on account of the introduction of new testimony allowed by the 
courts, and already the business before the courts was of sufficient 
volume to tax their capacity to the utmost limits, and when the thou¬ 
sands of citizenship cases were added to the dockets it was impossible 
for the courts to give to them the attention they should have had. 
Under the press of business the courts referred the citizenship cases 
to special masters to take testimony, make their findings, and 
report; and it is a fact, now too well known for dispute, that many 
of those special masters were themselves attorneys in citizenship 
cases of the same kind that were coming before them for hearing and 
recom mendation. 

It is no surprise then, that fraudulent and other improper evidence 
was received by many of the special masters in support of the claims 
of the applicants for Indian citizenship. .The tribes being unpre¬ 
pared at that time to attack and show up the great mass of fraudulent 
testimony of the applicants, and the courts not having the necessary 
time at their disposal to investigate the cases and the reports of the 
special masters in a way that should have been done, said reports of 
the special masters were approved and judgment went against the tribe 
almost as of default. 

Not content with having procured judgments by the use of perjured 
testimony and the practice of fraud of every other kind and descrip¬ 
tion, there are cases of record where the attorneys or others interested 
in the citizenship cases interpolated names of persons in the judgments 
who were not parties to the suits at all. It is true these names upon 
being called to the attention of the court were stricken from the judg¬ 
ments, but the practice of this and other fraud by the applicants and 


4 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


their attorneys serves to show the viciousness of the times when people 
would perjure their very souls to get on the tribal rolls in an effort to 
get a part of the land and money belonging to the Indians. 

The fraud of the applicants and their attorneys became so notorious 
as to attract universal attention and excite the contempt of honest and 
decent people everywhere. The Choctaws and Chickasaws appealed 
to the authorities at Washington to protect their rolls against fraud. 
An appeal was made to the Secretary of the Interior to disapprove the 
enrollment of the fraudulent applicants, and he answered that he was 
without power and authority to disregard the judgments of the courts. 
The tribes turned to Congress for relief and were told that it was not 
within the power of Congress to disturb the judgments of courts of 
competent jurisdiction by legislative act. Then the tribes asked for a 
review of the judgments of the courts admitting fraudulent applicants 
to Indian citizenship, upon the following grounds: 

1. That the United States district courts in the Indian Territory had 
admitted applicants to citizenship in the Choctaw and Chickasaw 
nations without notice to both of said tribes, and as said Choctaw and 
Chickasaw tribes jointly owned the property sought to be affected by 
said judgments, notice to both of said tribes was necessary. 

2. That in the trial of said cases by the courts on appeal from the 
Dawes Commission the proceedings in the courts should have been 
confined to a review of the action of the commission upon the papers 
and evidence submitted to the commission and should not have extended 
to a trial de novo of the question of citizenship. 

The request of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes for a review of 
the judgments of the United States courts admitting applicants to 
citizenship was made in the form of an agreement (known as the 
Choctaw-Chickasaw supplementary agreement, act of Congress ap¬ 
proved July 1, 1902) entered into between the Dawes Commission, 
representing the United States Government, and the representatives 
of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. Congress seeing the force of 
the contention against the validity of the judgments, and perceiving 
the justness of the claims of the tribes, was not disposed to ignore the 
same, but favored the provision for a review of said judgments upon 
the two legal questions submitted. The applicants and their attorneys 
became very much alarmed, for they, too, realized the legal infirmi¬ 
ties of the judgments under which they' claimed rights of Indian citi¬ 
zenship. And not only did the applicants and their attorneys fear 
that upon attack in the courts their citizenship judgments would be 
declared void and of no effect, but they well knew the truth of the 
charges of fraud made against them by the tribes. Applicants accord¬ 
ing^ sent their attorneys and others posthaste to Washington to lobby 
against the ratification of the agreement or the passage of any bill by 
Congress providing for a review of their citizenship judgments. But 
there had been an awakening of public conscience, and the applicants 
and their attornej T s were unable to further defeat the ends of justice 
and the demands of the law. 

When it became apparent that Congress would ratify the agreement 
with the tribes providing fora judicial review of the citizenship judg¬ 
ments upon the law questions to be submitted, the applicants and their 
attorneys became apprehensive of the result; and, knowing the fraud 
they had practiced in securing said judgments, they at once began to 
plead for terms. Not only did they ask that they be given another 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


5 


trial in the event the court judgments admitting them to citizenship 
should be declared void, as they were afraid they would be, but the} T 
begged that in the retrial of their cases the same to be considered with¬ 
out prejudice against them on account of any judgment or decision 
theretofore rendered. 

In order that the applicants might have the fullest opportunity to 
establish whatever rignts, if any, they had under their claims to Indian 
citizenship, the tribes offered no objection to the provision giving 
them another trial in the event of their former j udgments being declared 
void, although, under the circumstances, the tribes would have been 
entitled to final judgment. However, the agreement between the Gov¬ 
ernment and the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes, as ratified by Con¬ 
gress, contained the following provision, which gave to the applicants 
every reasonable opportunity in the world that they could ask for to 
prove up their rights, if any they had, to Indian citizenship: 

In the event said citizenship judgments or decisions are annulled or vacated in the 
test suit hereinbefore authorized, because of either or both of the irregularities 
claimed and insisted upon by said nations as aforesaid, then the files, papers, and 
proceedings in any citizenship case in which the judgment or decision is so annulled 
or vacated, shall, upon written application therefor, made within ninety days there¬ 
after by any party thereto who is thus deprived of a favorable judgment upon his 
claimed citizenship, be transferred and certified to said citizenship court by the 
court having the custody and control of such files, papers, and proceedings, and, 
upon the filing in such citizenship court of the files, papers, and proceedings in any 
such citizenship case, accompanied by due proof that notice in writing of the transfer 
and certification thereof has been given to the chief executive officer of each of said 
nations, said citizenship case shall be docketed in said citizenship court, and such 
proceedings shall be had therein in that court as ought to have been had in the 
court to which the same was taken on appeal from the Commission to the Five Civi¬ 
lized Tribes, and as if no judgment or decision had been rendered therein. 

It will be seen therefore that not only was Congress extremeh r 
liberal in the laws that it passed relating to Indian citizenship matters, 
but the Indian tribes were willing, as is shown by their agreements 
with the Government, that applicants should be offered every legiti¬ 
mate means known to the law of establishing their rights, if any they 
had, to Indian citizenship, the tribes insisting only that applicants 
must prove their rights, if any, by truthful and legal evidence. 

Upon the presentation to the citizenship court of the two test ques¬ 
tions submitted to it by said act of Congress approved July 1, 1902, 
the applicants amassed their force of attorneys before said court and 
made a vigorous but unsuccessful effort to sustain the validity of their 
citizenship judgments. After full hearing, given to both sides, and 
after mature deliberation by the court, the questions submitted and 
argued were decided in favor of the tribes by a unanimous opinion of 
the court, and the citizenship judgments of applicants held to be void 
for the two irregularities complained of and hereinbefore referred to. 

The victory of the tribes, though just and merited as it was, did not 
prevent the applicants from having a further trial of their cases on 
their merits without prejudice, for it was provided, as hereinbefore 
stated, that in the event the test questions should be decided against 
the validity of the judgments held by the applicants, then the appli¬ 
cants should have a right to come before the citizenship court and 
have their cases tried upon the facts 44 as if no judgment or decision 
had been rendered therein.’’ This they did. 

There was a notable difference, however, between the trial of the 
citizenship cases before the citizenship court and the trial of the same 


6 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


cases before the district courts. Mere the tribes were prepared and 
ready for trial and no cases were tried or decided on ex parte proof. 
In the trial of these cases before the citizenship court no special masters 
with interest* direct or indirect, in the outcome of the cases, were 
trusted or permitted to take testimony of the witnesses, as the law 
required that all such testimony must be taken before the court or ope 
of the judges of said court. It was a fair field and no favorites. While 
the taking of testimony was surrounded by every safeguard and pro¬ 
tection against perjury and fraud of every kind that the law could 
devise, the court was disposed to let in all the testimony on both sides 
that could reasonably be admitted under the law and rules of evidence, 
thereby giving to each side all opportunity to develop the full strength 
of their respective sides of the case. 

The time and attention of the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship 
court were devoted exclusively to the consideration of Choctaw and 
Chickasaw citizenship cases. The court was authorized by law to 
permit either party “to take and present such further evidence as 
may be necessary to enable said court to determine the very right of 
the controversy.” The provision of the law requiring the testimony to 
“ be taken in court or before one of the judges” necessitated some one 
of the members of the court visiting Mississippi, Virginia, and other 
States for the accommodation of the applicants to take the testimony of 
witnesses in their behalf. In every way possible did the law afford to 
the applicants a fair chance to prove their claims to Indian citizenship. 
The applicants availed themselves of the opportunities of the law, 
they came into court, submitted their proof, tried their cases at great 
length, and were shown every courtesy and consideration due them 
or that would have been due any litigant under the law. Indeed, so 
much time was given to the trial and consideration of applicants’ citi¬ 
zenship cases that it became necessary for Congress to extend the exist¬ 
ence of the court one year beyond the time originally provided b} 7 law. 

The cases were, each of them, decided upon the evidence and the 
merits and not upon the recommendation of special masters who were 
themselves attorneys in citizenship cases, and we submit that the record 
in each case will show a fair, impartial, and correct decision. The 
records are in existence, and we challenge the applicants and their 
representatives to produce the records in a single case and show by said 
records that the decision against them was not a correct decision. 

The result of the,Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship court’s deci¬ 
sions, after a tedious trial of each case and careful consideration of all 
the proof therein, was the admission of something like 150 of the appli¬ 
cants and the rejection of over 3,000 of them. 

Thus ended, so far as the actual adjudication of citizenship cases was 
concerned, a struggle covering a period of nearly ten years at the cost 
of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United States Government 
for courts and commissions to try the claims to Indian citizenship, and 
at a cost of over $1,000,000 to the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes to 
prevent the enrollment of fraudulent applicants. 

Now, we respectfully submit that the applicants have had their day 
in court, and the sum total of the proof introduced by them, to say 
nothing of the rebuttal testimony offered by the tribes, shows con¬ 
clusively that they are not Choctaw or Chickasaw Indians, and have 
no rights as such. Therefore they are not entitled to further con¬ 
sideration in the matter of their claims to Indian citizenship by either 
Congress or the courts., 

£ D rtiA 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


7 


We further respectfully submit that the record made by many of 
the applicants and their attorneys in the trial of their cases before the 
Dawes Commission and the United States courts shows them to be 
unworthy the consideration that has already been shown them by 
Congress; that the opportunities afforded them by law to make 
proof of their claims to citizenship in the tribes were in many instances 
abused by the applicants and their attorneys in such a way as to 
destroy all confidence in them or their claims. 

For these and other reasons appearing in the record we earnestly 
appeal to the authorities of the United States Government not to 
reopen the Choctaw and Chickasaw citizenship rolls, but to pro¬ 
tect the same against the fraud of applicants, their attorneys and 
representatives. 

It is true that the applicants and their attorneys charge fraud against 
the citizenship court, and allege irregularities on the part of the Dawes 
Commission in some cases, but they are wholly unable to support such 
charges by proof of any kind, as has been demonstrated by their unsuc¬ 
cessful efforts before the committees of Congress and before the United 
States court for the eastern district of Oklahoma. Applicants do not 
attempt to charge that injustice was done them in the decision of the 
citizenship court upon the record; they do not refer to the evidence 
before that court in a single case; they simply seek to discredit the 
court by slanderous charges that they are unable to prove. It is 
safe to say that applicants and their attorneys would complain against 
and malign an}^ tribunal that might decide against them, it matters not 
what the proof would show. 

It is our belief that many of the false claims to Choctaw and Chick¬ 
asaw citizenship are inspired by enterprising attorneys who encourage 
applicants to persist in their efforts before Congress and elsewhere to 
get on the rolls, in the hope that they will get a fee of a part of the 
lands and other property that would come to the applicants in the event 
of their enrollment. The attorneys, so called, but who are lobbyists 
first and attorneys afterwards, will undertake to have an applicant 
enrolled as a Choctaw or Chickasaw Indian for a contingent fee of 
one-half of the property such applicant would get if enrolled. 

A favorite plan of some of the attorneys who are engaged in this 
nefarious business is to present to Senators, Members of Congress, 
and officials of the Government persons of dark complexions and claim 
to be Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians who were left off the tribal 
rolls, when, as a matter of fact, many of them are not Indians at all, 
but are Creoles, Dagoes, Mexicans, etc.; and those who may be Indians, 
if any, are not Choctaws or Chickasaws, but belong to some tribe hav¬ 
ing no connection whatever with the Choctaw or Chickasaw tribes. 
It must be remembered that all Indians are not Choctaws and Chicka¬ 
saws. Such practice as that is a base deception and a fraud upon Con¬ 
gress and the Government, as well as upon the tribes, and deserves to 
be rebuked severely. 

We believe that there are some few scattering Choctaws and Chick¬ 
asaws who were left off the tribal rolls by mistake as a result of their 
own ignorance in failing to apply, and possibly some few others whose 
names were stricken from the rolls by mistake, but in all they will 
not number more than forty or fifty persons, and they have no connec¬ 
tion whatever with the class of fraudulent applicants and imposters 
that are being represented by attorneys and lobbyists at Washington, 
except, perhaps, that the few isolated instances of this kind may be 


8 


MEMORIAL OF CHOCTAW INDIANS. 


improperly referred to by such lobbyists in an effort to influence 
legislation in behalf of their thousands of undeserving clients. 

We believe, however, that the few real Indians who may have been 
left off the rolls by mistake are ascertainable from the records in the 
possession of the Commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, and we 
believe that a recommendation from Mr. W right, the commissioner, 
as to how these few persons should be cared for in the matter of enroll¬ 
ment would offer a safe and correct solution of the problem. 

We conclude, therefore, with the humble petition and earnest 
prayer to the President, the Congress of the United States, and the 
Secretary of the Interior that the rolls and property of the Choctaw 
and Chickasaw Indians be not again exposed to the fraud and graft of 
fraudulent claimants, their attorneys and lobbying representatives. 

Proposed by J. L. Ward, chairman of the committee on the chief’s 
message. 

Read, interpreted, passed the senate, and referred to the lower 
house on this the 13th day of October. 1908. 

G. W. Choate, 
President of the Senate. 

Attest: 

C. A. Hurd, 

Recording Secretary. 

Read and interpreted, passed the house, and referred to the principal 
chief this the 13th day of October, 1908. 

E. A. Moore, 

Speaker pro term of the House. 

Attest: 

W. H. ISHERWOOD, 
Recording Secretary. 

Approved this the 14th day of October, 1908. 

Green McCurtain, 
Principal Chief Choctaw Nation. 

O 






























































































C Mj x ,^ \V * A v 

• A y' \ -.f.^' S *. -,7V.. 0 

A AJ”*. *#. A ..>■•. 'V <?> <«“> -V 0 * 

* <*Ss\w\4T# V G + j e/lTT?*' O w" ^ f, , 

• +* 0 « ‘/s^.*. -- .V ‘^ w -'• ■* 


o v 


^ • 


<0 v\ v * 4 0 

v cJ* ct <^^/\rw s -cl* ^ * 

\ ^ ~*^vyj/<& ^ k. ' j» 

) A^ + Z*^" % fv o ^o- , > 

* y *°- v sVV** V . 0 ^ A*°. *> 

* . > ts'/x--} *>. ' 't'V * ° ^ - s 

" v"^ = W>slW* o>-* - - 

*.«5" ^ ' , . v <;'C<* & 

'— .... V "•** A ... <v. * 


^ a. 

“ ^ *$ 


0 


, ° W * 

■ *b v* : 


<*• >• VJ 

0* *y \J * 

V* A 

^ r\ v 




^0 


o M O 


o \0 v% v 
h v <#* i 

« ^ -<£- 


s •&,* * 

^ °°^> "^To 0 ' o' ^ 

** v /*%<?*•* V a v ^ ^ ^- *°' *> 


o' * 


: A V *^ : 


\A V 

Cj vP 

V ^ °. 


«• *p , I 

* ^ 4> * 

: ^<3 


' ' <#*. 


• 1 ' a -» Z o 


o 'o . * - A 


;* '■ 


5v 0v ^ 


0 


r -v 

«^ c 0 " 0 , ^ 

* ° A «' 

^ - ' J o V 4 ° 


'•••* 4 ( 


Si 4 :i 


* i * ° - 


+ s.~ ^ - 

•» ^ °- 


V . % c\ > y * ° 


,v 

<• 


\ 






V AV^. c\ 


, ~*z* w • * a y v '.. « s ,G* ^ *'^’. T'* 4 A 

°* ^ ^ r o^ a l ^ 

N 4 c^SoAVr^ ^ % C o .1^ 

tt-rS 


: %z 




y<* 




o 


C\ 


f' 


' x o .°’ < ’ 
i°\ '. a 

0 j * 

A° V 














V ^ ^ ' • - 5 "O . . - <\ <V 

O -J A^ C ° G * O v * *• 1 • * Q - <& 0 * <3 ^ <£> 


w ^JU rS 



^ 0 
4 © 

IT ^ 

* &*v ^ * 

Jl v <5> -•■'• A °. * • ■ »’ A ° V ‘ 

5 .’*•- ^ V >’Vl% C\ A . • • *> 

/A^V" ■*,. > .VSfiN*. *<#>_ ,** ,VSs#V* ^ > ‘ 



$ . 


, iP-n*. v*2||fpu £°-*- 

,o "V «> O 

,o <!> " ’ . V c 

1 v> v 


.V c° a^. °o <- , 

* ^ £ " JP!M. . • „ .. ^ <*& C 





<* <V«\ -. ^, 81U ^ o A */\. 

' <* '*'*t!*• 4 \o*" V 

V .°J^% ^ ,0 V , • 1 ' ” *, O a‘ 

•v <° »Vg0^v A ^ 

A cr • F^mQ^ - o v 


c o - o 


: ^ ^ 

«y cv -, 

^ °* * 
v/ *L>L% A 

- «*> A ► 

♦ f5*i|2* • <^p A «■. 

° • • - vP<^ 

*‘^ Srs ^; .<>* : 

* V % '* 





c\ V 

% * 0 "° ^ < 
V ^ *‘jSfe'- % / •V\W/k,' 

^v >9 s . AWM//A. 


5 *'!>'. f** A <V 

° .»*•» A, 

\ \ ^N>\\ W ^ ^ 


^0* 



cr ! • ‘' * - ' z c 

V ^ ^,/K/To ^ 


Ho*. 



»i» 


A V c 0 “ 0 ^ 

’- -o A ; 

» »p ~ 7 + 



++ 0 * 


A° 


V<v 


°c 



°o -:^o- n° ^ «> 

o^ o M o <0 & * ' 1 <V 

V’ i*^4 A‘°- A> V % 

*. % ^ ^ ^ 'jsM/tir. U A * ' 

■^V ° ^ o' v ** , mwW ^ ° V“V ° 

.* /"A A*. : ^SM^ #*% v. 

DOBBS BROS. 'o . * - A <". s % ,0^ v3» 

LIBRARY BINDING ^ A> 0 " 0 <<> A t / , A 4 

o Ay c ° . ♦ ^o v . • 1 * ♦ O a 

j y- • -A V t. S^>/Y?7^ •» O .A 



^o« 


■ A°- 




A 


4 ». ’’bi,'* 

ST. AUGUSTINE 

#rAF-4 FLA. . > <K 


- V * * # * A . 



« v * 


. V ♦ o , 















